Intercepts
A listening post monitoring public education and teachers’ unions.

Click here to read:

1) EIA Exclusive: NEA Internal Survey on Health Care Reveals “Huge Divide Between NEA Executives and Presidents and Rank and File”
2) Ohio Education Association Staff Prepare to Strike; South Carolina Staff Warned of Disaster
3) Indiana State Teachers Association Sues Former Executive Director
4) Reactions to NEA’s Race to the Top Letter
5) EIA Technology Update and Scheduling Note
6) Contract Hits
7) Last Week’s Intercepts
8) Quote of the Week

When the Missouri Supreme Court ruled teachers could bargain collectively, it set in motion a unique battle over how representation would be set. The state has an NEA affiliate, but it also has a larger, non-union teacher organization, the Missouri State Teachers Association. The two sides are butting heads in Springfield. Springfield NEA (SNEA) wants exclusive representation. MSTA wants multiple representatives.

The Springfield News-Leader described the arguments in circuit court:

Much of SNEA’s arguments hinged on its position that collective bargaining is a “term of art,” meaning that it’s historically and uniformly understood to mean exclusive representation through a majority rule vote.

Though not explicit in the state constitution, collective bargaining is implied as such because it is a term of art, Barker said.

To drive home the point, SNEA called in an expert witness on labor and law — Joseph Slater, a professor of law and values at the University of Toledo College of Law.

Slater provided for the court a historical backdrop of labor law in the United States, citing numerous cases and statutes that involved collective bargaining for private and public sector workers.

“Collective bargaining is a term of art that necessarily includes the idea of exclusive representation because that’s the way it has always been in America,” Slater said in his testimony. “Collective bargaining was never intended to benefit the employer by fragmenting the employees.”

NEA is correct in stating that exclusive representation and collective bargaining have in practice gone hand-in-hand, but that’s still a long way from claiming that exclusive representation is part of collective bargaining by definition. Once you allow that type of reasoning, there is no limit to rights and privileges one can claim under the law.

I’m reminded of the story of the Army Corps of Engineers’ migratory bird rule – which forever became known as the “glancing goose test.” The Corps extended federal regulatory controls over bodies of water fully contained within the borders of a single state by claiming jurisdiction over anyof those areas that “are or would be used as habitat by other migratory birds which cross state lines.” Yes, if a bird flew across a state line and glanced down at a body of water, the feds could regulate it by authority of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

It’s hopeless, I suppose, to wish to be ruled by what the law says, rather than what opposing advocates claim everyone knows it means.

A group of laid off teachers brought a petition to the offices of the North Clackamas Education Association in Oregon protesting the union’s decision to accept job cuts over salary freezes – contrary, they claim, to the wishes of the members.

“We took a poll in the spring and they got our opinion and the majority said wage freeze,” said Monica Whiteley, who was laid off. “So I would like them to look at the poll or honor it and have us look at the memo of understanding that is out there.”

They said they feel the union hasn’t been listening or communicating.

“I have felt like my voice has not been heard. I wasn’t asked was I OK with losing my job,” said Jenny Klassen, another laid off teacher.

Meanwhile, members of the Kent Education Association in Washington state voted overwhelmingly to go on strike. Only one problem with that:

Washington courts and the Attorney General’s office have repeatedly ruled that teacher strikes, like any public-employee strike in Washington State, are illegal.

The KEA disagrees, however.

The Anchorage Press reports that NEA-Alaska is shelling out an additional $170,000 in a settlement due to charges against former executive director Thomas Harvey. Long-time EIA readers may recall that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit in 2005 on behalf of three NEA-Alaska employees who claimed Harvey had harassed them. The subsequent ruling was precedent-setting because the court determined sexual harassment in the workplace did not have to have sexual content.

NEA and NEA-Alaska settled the case for $750,000 in 2006 without admitting wrongdoing, and Harvey resigned. EEOC attorney Carmen Flores said this second settlement is on behalf of four employees who accused Harvey of intimidating them while the first lawsuit was being litigated.

“This stuff was happening, even while we were trying to resolve the first case,” she said.

NEA-Alaska President Barb Angaiak said NEA and NEA-Alaska shared the costs of both settlements. She declined to say how much of the settlement was NEA-Alaska. “The only thing I can share with you is that it is a shared cost,” she said.

By “we” this time I mean the nation’s education reporters, pundits, bloggers, commentators, policy analysts, etc. The latest evidence is a Gallup poll that shows 64% of U.S. adults support charter schools. The results are mitigated by the fact that more than half of the respondents didn’t know charters are public schools, 57 percent thought they charge tuition, and 71 percent didn’t know charters are barred from cherry-picking students.

We’ve seen similar survey results in the past regarding NCLB, teacher pay and education spending. It’s either a reflection of the mounting ignorance and apathy of the American public about education policy, or a bad case of insularity in the education policy community. Neither answer speaks well of how we’re doing our work. Until we reach and inform the majority of Americans who do not – or no longer – have children in the public schools, we will continue to have a public education system designed primarily for “stakeholders” (and I don’t mean parents).

Ignorance may be bliss, but it’s also very expensive.

That’s the conclusion of a new survey by the American Association of School Administrators.

“When asked how their districts are using ARRA funds to bring about education innovation and reform, more than two-thirds of respondents replied that the stimulus dollars are either filling funding gaps or represent only marginal growth in funding levels.

School districts across the country, following one of the major goals of the stimulus dollars, are using the one-time funds to save teaching and staff positions. However, less than half of respondents reported being able to save core subject teaching positions as a result of ARRA dollars. A majority of districts were also unable to save librarian positions, school nursing positions, maintenance/cafeteria/transportation staff positions, foreign language teaching positions, art/music/physical education teaching positions, and teaching aide/assistant positions.”

Let’s see. The money went to save jobs, but most districts didn’t save the jobs of core subject teaching positions, librarians, nurses, support staff, foreign language teachers, art, music or PE teachers, or teachers’ aides. Who’s left? District payroll officers? Curriculum coordinators? File clerks? In related news, 79 school districts in Oklahoma don’t have a web site, even though 59 of them employ a “technology director.”

Anyway, we were tipped off to the AASA study by Education Week‘s District Dossier, yet another new education blog. Welcome to the Internet tubes!

Click here to read:

1) Curtain Falls on NEA’s Kumbaya Chorus
2) NEA Affiliates in Ohio and South Carolina Have Staff Contract Problems
3) Contract Hits
4) Last Week’s Intercepts
5) Quotes of the Week